In person For the First v Respondent — 2018

At the open preliminary hearing on 15 and 16 July 2019, Employment Judge Wyeth removed Dynamite Recruitment Solutions Ltd as a party because there was no viable basis for liability against it. The remaining claims were brought against Quick Release (Automotive) Ltd and arose from the claimant's 2018 attempts to secure a role connected with a German company and from a request for a reference. The claimant had previously brought and settled a 2014 race discrimination claim against the first respondent by COT3 dated 1 March 2018, and that settlement was central to the jurisdiction issue in this case.

The tribunal held that the COT3 compromised the current complaints. It read the settlement wording as covering all claims, including claims arising directly or indirectly out of or in connection with the claimant's employment, its termination, or otherwise, and including claims the claimant may not have been aware of when he signed it. The judge also found that, even if the settlement did not bar the present claims, the claimant was already aware from the January and February 2018 email exchange and the 19 February 2018 rejection that the reference and recruitment issues existed before he entered the COT3.

Independently of the settlement, the tribunal held that the breach of contract complaint about a reference was outside the tribunal's contractual jurisdiction under article 3 of the 1994 Order because any such claim was not outstanding on termination of employment. The judge rejected the argument that German or Romanian law applied to the 2014 employment contract, held that English and Welsh law applied, and found no implied term entitling the claimant to a reference. The victimisation, direct race discrimination, direct age discrimination, and discrimination arising from disability claims also had no reasonable prospect because there was no evidence that the first respondent controlled or influenced the German company's recruitment decision; EL's email stated that she had no influence over the recruitment process.

The final judgment struck out and dismissed the claim in its entirety for lack of jurisdiction, and the November 2019 trial was vacated. The claimant also indicated at the hearing that he was no longer pursuing negligence, perjury, or forgery allegations, so those matters were not determined.